The Gauhati High Court has held that a plaintiff cannot oppose the impleadment of a proper party merely on the ground that, being dominus litis, the plaintiff has the right to choose the persons against whom they wish to litigate. This observation was made by Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita in CRP(IO) No. 490/2024, titled Kimi Sarda v. Krishna Sharma & Ors., a revision petition challenging an order of the Civil Judge, Silchar, which allowed an application for impleadment of the respondent as a defendant in a title suit under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The petitioner had instituted the suit seeking a declaration of her right, title and interest over the suit property, eviction of the defendants, and a permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the respondent sought impleadment, stating that he had taken a room situated over the suit property on monthly rent from one of the defendants, that a tenancy agreement had been executed, and that he was running a retail electric goods shop from the premises. The trial court allowed the application and directed the impleadment of the respondent.
The petitioner contested the impleadment, arguing that the respondent was not a necessary party and that, as dominus litis, she had the exclusive right to choose who could be impleaded as a defendant. She further submitted that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between her and the respondent. The respondent, conversely, asserted that he was in possession of the suit property and that his impleadment was necessary for effective adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of litigation.
The High Court noted that there was no dispute regarding the respondent’s possession of a room in the suit premises and his operation of a retail electric goods shop therefrom. The Court observed that the respondent’s presence would enable the trial court to completely, effectively, and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute. It stated, “As such, there is no doubt that his presence in the suit as a defendant would enable the Trial Court to completely, effectively, and adequately adjudicate upon all matters in dispute in the suit. As such, not to speak of whether he is a necessary party or not, there is no dispute that Respondent No. 1 is certainly a proper party in the suit.”
The Court further held that the exercise of discretion by the trial court under Order I Rule 10(2) of the CPC in impleading the respondent did not appear to be arbitrary in any view of the matter. It emphasized that the general rule allowing the plaintiff, as dominus litis, to choose the persons against whom to litigate, yields to the discretion of the court under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to implead either necessary or proper parties, as the case may be.
On the scope of Article 227 jurisdiction, the High Court reiterated that supervisory power must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and only if the lower court has exercised its discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or in violation of natural justice. The Court found that the trial court had given valid reasons for exercising its discretion under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC and therefore declined to interfere with the impugned order. It stated that the present case did not warrant the invocation of the Court’s extraordinary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the revision petition and vacated the interim order that had stayed the proceedings in the suit. The judgment underscores the principle that while the plaintiff enjoys certain procedural privileges as dominus litis, such privileges are not absolute and are subject to the court’s discretion to ensure complete and effective adjudication of disputes.